Indefensible

[berni_mccoy]

Lately, President Obama has been making claims that are not defendable. His acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace prize said America never made war with Democracies. He may have been mistaken, but it clearly isn't the case, as one DUer eloquently captured several conflicts the U.S. has had with Democracies. This may have been a mincing of words, a mistake, or worse, intellectual dishonesty. I gave the President the benefit of the doubt. However, his recent statement regarding his campaign platform on the Public Option, that is not so easy to excuse as a mistake. I will not defend this rewrite of political history and I find it disappointing to say the least. I find it very surprising that the President could make this statement, promoting the integrity of it as truth. As many politicians make the same mistake, it seems they forget that just about every word they speak is recorded and preserved. All that remains is for the Daily Show to juxtapose his recent statement with his campaign statements, and it will be at the same time a sad, yet comedic reflection of the damage the President has done to himself.

To President Obama, I encourage you to retract your statement, to apologize and to refrain from making indefensible statements like this. Stick with the truth please, and be honest with us, as well as yourself. If you don't believe a Public Option is the best solution or the only solution, you're going to have to face the consequences of that stance as it is different from the one you campaigned on. Explain your new position if you can, but don't say you didn't campaign on this. As grantcart and other DUers have noted here at DU, the current Senate HCR bill does have a government run component, a public plan, to it operated by the OPM (see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=388x6647 ). While I still hold skepticism with respect to the Senate bill, I've started taking a closer look, especially with respect to the Sanders/Cardin components that were added that would help bring affordable health care to 30 million more Americans. I suspect Americans aren't being informed on this. Stick to the truth if you believe in what this bill will bring for us. Because if you go the route of dishonesty, you undermine your own, as well as our, cause.

[mmonk]

1. If the final bill has a ratio of 90%

and they don't look to further weaken our only government alternatives, then the bill won't be as bad as it currently is. But that a huge if. As it stands, I don't like it except the expansion of community health centers.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Question:

Why would 85% not be sufficient? If the enforcement is there (again, this is the unknown part, and subject to change with each administration)... then why would 85% not be enough?

[mmonk]

3. I believe it currently stands at 80-85%. So 90% would be an improvement

due to squeezing more out of their accounting practices of which they can declare unrelated expenses as health care. It must not be changeable. There must not be loopholes and what is really medical expense spending strictly enumerated. Of course, Congress can still change it in the future like bending with the wind. The deregulation of financial industry and subsequent mess should prove that point. Relying too much on politics is a major problem with the legislation after passaage along with the structural one.

[berni_mccoy]

4. So there is a Medical Loss Ratio currently enforced on Health Insurance companies?

I was unaware that the government was regulating this today.

[AllentownJake]

5. Reid took out the 90% as a compromise with Ben Nelson

and also because the CBO said that the 90% medical loss ratio would make the mandate a government program.

[berni_mccoy]

6. That I am aware of, but it sounded like from the response that there is already an 85% MLR.

The fact is there isn't any control on costs or accounting today. 85% is far better than the status quo.

[AllentownJake]

7. 80% is only those plans who receive subsidies

The rest of the insurance landscape has no such ruling.

No one knows what the private market will create till after their compliance people, lawyers, and actuaries sit down with the bill and create a product.

They may determine it is not profitable enough, and create no product at all.

[berni_mccoy]

8. Ok that is a very impotant distinction. Thanks for the clarification.